EN BANC

[G.R. NO. 159357. April 28, 2004]

Brother MARIANO MIKE Z. VELARDE, Petitioner, v. SOCIAL JUSTICE

SOCIETY, Respondent.

DECISION

PANGANIBAN, J.:

A decision that does not conform to the form and substance required by the Constitution
and the law is void and deemed legally inexistent. To be valid, decisions should comply
with the form, the procedure and the substantive requirements laid out in the
Constitution, the Rules of Court and relevant circulars/orders of the Supreme Court. For
the guidance of the bench and the bar, the Court hereby discusses these forms,
procedures and requirements.

The Case

Before us is a Petition for Review1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the
June 12, 2003 Decision2 and July 29, 2003 Order3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Manila (Branch 49). 4 ςrνll

The challenged Decision was the offshoot of a Petition for Declaratory Relief5 filed
before the RTC-Manila by herein Respondent Social Justice Society (SJS) against herein
Petitioner Mariano Mike Z. Velarde, together with His Eminence, Jaime Cardinal Sin,
Executive Minister Erao Manalo, Brother Eddie Villanueva and Brother Eliseo F.
Soriano as co-respondents. The Petition prayed for the resolution of the question
whether or not the act of a religious leader like any of herein respondents, in endorsing
the candidacy of a candidate for elective office or in urging or requiring the members of
his flock to vote for a specified candidate, is violative of the letter or spirit of the
constitutional provisions x x x.6 ςrνll

Alleging that the questioned Decision did not contain a statement of facts and a
dispositive portion, herein petitioner filed a Clarificatory Motion and Motion for
Reconsideration before the trial court. Soriano, his co-respondent, similarly filed a
separate Motion for Reconsideration. In response, the trial court issued the assailed
Order, which held as follows:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

x x x [T]his Court cannot reconsider, because what it was asked to do, was only to clarify
a Constitutional provision and to declare whether acts are violative thereof. The
Decision did not make a dispositive portion because a dispositive portion is required
only in coercive reliefs, where a redress from wrong suffered and the benefit that the
prevailing party wronged should get. The step that these movants have to take, is direct
appeal under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, for a conclusive interpretation of the
Constitutional provision to the Supreme Court.7

The Antecedent Proceedings

On January 28, 2003, SJS filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief (SJS Petition) before
the RTC-Manila against Velarde and his aforesaid co-respondents. SJS, a registered
political party, sought the interpretation of several constitutional
provisions,8 specifically on the separation of church and state; and a declaratory
judgment on the constitutionality of the acts of religious leaders endorsing a candidate
for an elective office, or urging or requiring the members of their flock to vote for a
specified candidate.
The subsequent proceedings were recounted in the challenged Decision in these
words:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

x x x. Bro. Eddie Villanueva submitted, within the original period [to file an Answer], a
Motion to Dismiss. Subsequently, Executive Minister Erao Manalo and Bro. Mike
Velarde, filed their Motions to Dismiss. While His Eminence Jaime Cardinal L. Sin, filed
a Comment and Bro. Eli Soriano, filed an Answer within the extended period and
similarly prayed for the dismissal of the Petition. All sought the dismissal of the Petition
on the common grounds that it does not state a cause of action and that there is no
justiciable controversy. They were ordered to submit a pleading by way of advisement,
which was closely followed by another Order denying all the Motions to Dismiss. Bro.
Mike Velarde, Bro. Eddie Villanueva and Executive Minister Erao Manalo moved to
reconsider the denial. His Eminence Jaime Cardinal L. Sin, asked for extension to file
memorandum. Only Bro. Eli Soriano complied with the first Order by submitting his
Memorandum. x x x. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

x x x the Court denied the Motions to Dismiss, and the Motions for Reconsideration
filed by Bro. Mike Velarde, Bro. Eddie Villanueva and Executive Minister Erao Manalo,
which raised no new arguments other than those already considered in the motions to
dismiss x x x.9 ςrνll

After narrating the above incidents, the trial court said that it had jurisdiction over the
Petition, because in praying for a determination as to whether the actions imputed to
the respondents are violative of Article II, Section 6 of the Fundamental Law, [the
Petition] has raised only a question of law.10 It then proceeded to a lengthy discussion of
the issue raised in the Petition the separation of church and state even tracing, to some
extent, the historical background of the principle. Through its discourse, the court a
quo opined at some point that the [e]ndorsement of specific candidates in an election to
any public office is a clear violation of the separation clause.11 ςrνll

After its essay on the legal issue, however, the trial court failed to include a dispositive
portion in its assailed Decision. Thus, Velarde and Soriano filed separate Motions for
Reconsideration which, as mentioned earlier, were denied by the lower court.

Hence, this Petition for Review.12 ςrνll

This Court, in a Resolution13 dated September 2, 2003, required SJS and the Office of
the Solicitor General (OSG) to submit their respective comments. In the same
Resolution, the Court gave the other parties -- impleaded as respondents in the original
case below --the opportunity to comment, if they so desired.

On April 13, 2004, the Court en banc conducted an Oral Argument.14

The Issues

In his Petition, Brother Mike Velarde submits the following issues for this Courts
resolution:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

1.Whether or not the Decision dated 12 June 2003 rendered by the court a quo was
proper and valid;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

2.Whether or not there exists justiceable controversy in herein respondents Petition for
declaratory relief;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

3.Whether or not herein respondent has legal interest in filing the Petition for
declaratory relief;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

2
4.Whether or not the constitutional question sought to be resolved by herein respondent
is ripe for judicial determination;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

5.Whether or not there is adequate remedy other than the declaratory relief; and,

6.Whether or not the court a quo has jurisdiction over the Petition for declaratory relief
of herein respondent.15 ςrνll

During the Oral Argument, the issues were narrowed down and classified as
follows:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

A.Procedural Issues

Did the Petition for Declaratory Relief raise a justiciable controversy?Did it state a cause
of action? Did respondent have any legal standing to file the Petition for Declaratory
Relief?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

B.Substantive Issues

1.Did the RTC Decision conform to the form and substance required by the Constitution,
the law and the Rules of Court?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

2.May religious leaders like herein petitioner, Bro. Mike Velarde, be prohibited from
endorsing candidates for public office? Corollarily, may they be banned from
campaigning against said candidates?

The Courts Ruling

The Petition of Brother Mike Velarde is meritorious.

Procedural Issues:

Requisites of Petitions
for Declaratory Relief

Section 1 of Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, which deals with petitions for declaratory
relief, provides in part:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

Section 1. Who may file petition.- Any person interested under a deed, will, contract or
other written instrument, whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or
regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental regulation may, before breach or
violation thereof, bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine
any question of construction or validity arising, and for a declaration of his rights or
duties thereunder.

Based on the foregoing, an action for declaratory relief should be filed by a person
interested under a deed, a will, a contract or other written instrument, and whose rights
are affected by a statute, an executive order, a regulation or an ordinance. The purpose
of the remedy is to interpret or to determine the validity of the written
instrument and to seek a judicial declaration of the parties rights or duties
thereunder.16 The essential requisites of the action are as follows: (1) there is a
justiciable controversy; (2) the controversy is between persons whose interests are
adverse; (3) the party seeking the relief has a legal interest in the controversy; and (4)
the issue is ripe for judicial determination.17

3
 Justiciable Controversy

Brother Mike Velarde contends that the SJS Petition failed to allege, much less establish
before the trial court, that there existed a justiciable controversy or an adverse legal
interest between them; and that SJS had a legal right that was being violated or
threatened to be violated by petitioner. On the contrary, Velarde alleges that SJS
premised its action on mere speculations, contingent events, and hypothetical issues
that had not yet ripened into an actual controversy. Thus, its Petition for Declaratory
Relief must fail.

A justiciable controversy refers to an existing case or controversy that is appropriate or

ripe for judicial determination, not one that is conjectural or merely anticipatory. 18 The
SJS Petition for Declaratory Relief fell short of this test. It miserably failed to allege an
existing controversy or dispute between the petitioner and the named respondents
therein. Further, the Petition did not sufficiently state what specific legal right of the
petitioner was violated by the respondents therein; and what particular act or acts of the
latter were in breach of its rights, the law or the Constitution.

As pointed out by Brother Eliseo F. Soriano in his Comment,19 what exactly has he done
that merited the attention of SJS? He confesses that he does not know the answer,
because the SJS Petition (as well as the assailed Decision of the RTC) yields nothing in
this respect. His Eminence, Jaime Cardinal Sin, adds that, at the time SJS filed its
Petition on January 28, 2003, the election season had not even started yet; and that, in
any event, he has not been actively involved in partisan politics.

An initiatory complaint or petition filed with the trial court should contain a plain,
concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which the party pleading relies for
his claim x x x.20 Yet, the SJS Petition stated no ultimate facts.

Indeed, SJS merely speculated or anticipated without factual moorings that, as religious
leaders, the petitioner and his co-respondents below had endorsed or threatened to
endorse a candidate or candidates for elective offices; and that such actual or threatened
endorsement will enable [them] to elect men to public office who [would] in turn be
forever beholden to their leaders, enabling them to control the government[;]21 and
pos[ing] a clear and present danger of serious erosion of the peoples faith in the
electoral process[;] and reinforc[ing] their belief that religious leaders determine the
ultimate result of elections,22 which would then be violative of the separation clause.

Such premise is highly speculative and merely theoretical, to say the least. Clearly, it
does not suffice to constitute a justiciable controversy. The Petition does not even allege
any indication or manifest intent on the part of any of the respondents below to
champion an electoral candidate, or to urge their so-called flock to vote for, or not to
vote for, a particular candidate. It is a time-honored rule that sheer speculation does not
give rise to an actionable right.

Obviously, there is no factual allegation that SJS rights are being subjected to any
threatened, imminent and inevitable violation that should be prevented by the
declaratory relief sought.The judicial power and duty of the courts to settle actual
controversies involving rights that are legally demandable and enforceable23 cannot be
exercised when there is no actual or threatened violation of a legal right.

All that the 5-page SJS Petition prayed for was that the question raised in paragraph 9
hereof be resolved.24 In other words, it merely sought an opinion of the trial court on
whether the speculated acts of religious leaders endorsing elective candidates for
political offices violated the constitutional principle on the separation of church and
state. SJS did not ask for a declaration of its rights and duties; neither did it pray for the

4
stoppage of any threatened violation of its declared rights.Courts, however, are
proscribed from rendering an advisory opinion.25

Cause of Action

Respondent SJS asserts that in order to maintain a petition for declaratory relief, a
cause of action need not be alleged or proven. Supposedly, for such petition to prosper,
there need not be any violation of a right, breach of duty or actual wrong committed by
one party against the other.

Petitioner, on the other hand, argues that the subject matter of an action for declaratory
relief should be a deed, a will, a contract (or other written instrument), a statute, an
executive order, a regulation or an ordinance. But the subject matter of the SJS Petition
is the constitutionality of an act of a religious leader to endorse the candidacy of a
candidate for elective office or to urge or require the members of the flock to vote for a
specified candidate.26 According to petitioner, this subject matter is beyond the realm of
an action for declaratory relief.27 Petitioner avers that in the absence of a valid subject
matter, the Petition fails to state a cause of action and, hence, should have been
dismissed outright by the court a quo.

A cause of action is an act or an omission of one party in violation of the legal right or
rights of another, causing injury to the latter.28 Its essential elements are the following:
(1) a right in favor of the plaintiff; (2) an obligation on the part of the named defendant
to respect or not to violate such right; and (3) such defendants act or omission that is
violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the
former to the latter.29 ςrνll

The failure of a complaint to state a cause of action is a ground for its outright
dismissal.30 However, in special civil actions for declaratory relief, the concept of a cause
of action under ordinary civil actions does not strictly apply. The reason for this
exception is that an action for declaratory relief presupposes that there has been no
actual breach of the instruments involved or of rights arising thereunder.31 Nevertheless,
a breach or violation should be impending, imminent or at least threatened.

A perusal of the Petition filed by SJS before the RTC discloses no explicit allegation that
the former had any legal right in its favor that it sought to protect. We can only infer the
interest, supposedly in its favor, from its bare allegation that it has thousands of
members who are citizens-taxpayers-registered voters and who are keenly interested in
a judicial clarification of the constitutionality of the partisan participation of religious
leaders in Philippine politics and in the process to insure adherence to the Constitution
by everyone x x x.32 ςrνll

Such general averment does not, however, suffice to constitute a legal right or interest.
Not only is the presumed interest not personal in character; it is likewise too vague,
highly speculative and uncertain.33 The Rules require that the interest must be material
to the issue and affected by the questioned act or instrument, as distinguished from
simple curiosity or incidental interest in the question raised.34 ςrνll

To bolster its stance, SJS cites the Corpus Juris Secundum and submits that the
[p]laintiff in a declaratory judgment action does not seek to enforce a claim against [the]
defendant, but seeks a judicial declaration of [the] rights of the parties for the purpose of
guiding [their] future conduct, and the essential distinction between a declaratory
judgment action and the usual action is that no actual wrong need have been committed
or loss have occurred in order to sustain the declaratory judgment action, although there
must be no uncertainty that the loss will occur or that the asserted rights will be
invaded.35 ςrνll

5
SJS has, however, ignored the crucial point of its own reference that there must be no
uncertainty that the loss will occur or that the asserted rights will be
invaded. Precisely, as discussed earlier, it merely conjectures that herein petitioner (and
his co-respondents below) might actively participate in partisan politics, use the
awesome voting strength of its faithful flock [to] enable it to elect men to public office x
x x, enabling [it] to control the government.36 ςrνll

During the Oral Argument, though, Petitioner Velarde and his co-respondents below all
strongly asserted that they had not in any way engaged or intended to participate in
partisan politics.They all firmly assured this Court that they had not done anything to
trigger the issue raised and to entitle SJS to the relief sought.

Indeed, the Court finds in the Petition for Declaratory Relief no single allegation of fact
upon which SJS could base a right of relief from the named respondents. In any event,
even granting that it sufficiently asserted a legal right it sought to protect, there was
nevertheless no certainty that such right would be invaded by the said respondents. Not
even the alleged proximity of the elections to the time the Petition was filed below
(January 28, 2003) would have provided the certainty that it had a legal right that
would be jeopardized or violated by any of those Respondents.

Legal Standing

Legal standing or locus standi has been defined as a personal and substantial interest in
the case, such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the
challenged act.37 Interest means a material interest in issue that is affected by the
questioned act or instrument, as distinguished from a mere incidental interest in the
question involved.38 ςrνll

Petitioner alleges that [i]n seeking declaratory relief as to the constitutionality of an act
of a religious leader to endorse, or require the members of the religious flock to vote for
a specific candidate, herein Respondent SJS has no legal interest in the controversy;39 it
has failed to establish how the resolution of the proffered question would benefit or
injure it.

Parties bringing suits challenging the constitutionality of a law, an act or a statute must
show not only that the law [or act] is invalid, but also that [they have] sustained or [are]
in immediate or imminent danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of its
enforcement, and not merely that [they] suffer thereby in some indefinite way.40 They
must demonstrate that they have been, or are about to be, denied some right or privilege
to which they are lawfully entitled, or that they are about to be subjected to some
burdens or penalties by reason of the statute or act complained of.41 ςrνll

First, parties suing as taxpayers must specifically prove that they have sufficient interest
in preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation.42 A taxpayers action
may be properly brought only when there is an exercise by Congress of its taxing or
spending power.43 In the present case, there is no allegation, whether express or
implied, that taxpayers money is being illegally disbursed.

Second, there was no showing in the Petition for Declaratory Relief that SJS as a
political party or its members as registered voters would be adversely affected by the
alleged acts of the respondents below, if the question at issue was not resolved. There
was no allegation that SJS had suffered or would be deprived of votes due to the acts
imputed to the said respondents. Neither did it allege that any of its members would be
denied the right of suffrage or the privilege to be voted for a public office they are
seeking.

6
Finally, the allegedly keen interest of its thousands of members who are citizens-
taxpayers-registered voters is too general44 and beyond the contemplation of the
standards set by our jurisprudence. Not only is the presumed interest impersonal in
character; it is likewise too vague, highly speculative and uncertain to satisfy the
requirement of standing.45

Transcendental Importance

In any event, SJS urges the Court to take cognizance of the Petition, even sans legal
standing, considering that the issues raised are of paramount public interest.

In not a few cases, the Court has liberalized the locus standi requirement when a
petition raises an issue of transcendental significance or paramount importance to the
people.46 Recently, after holding that the IBP had no locus standi to bring the suit, the
Court in IBP v. Zamora47 nevertheless entertained the Petition therein. It noted that the
IBP has advanced constitutional issues which deserve the attention of this Court in view
of their seriousness, novelty and weight as precedents.48 ςrνll

Similarly in the instant case, the Court deemed the constitutional issue raised in the SJS
Petition to be of paramount interest to the Filipino people. The issue did not simply
concern a delineation of the separation between church and state, but ran smack into
the governance of our country. The issue was both transcendental in importance and
novel in nature, since it had never been decided before.

The Court, thus, called for Oral Argument to determine with certainty whether it could
resolve the constitutional issue despite the barren allegations in the SJS Petition as well
as the abbreviated proceedings in the court below. Much to its chagrin, however,
counsels for the parties -- particularly for Respondent SJS -- made no satisfactory
allegations or clarifications that would supply the deficiencies hereinabove discussed.
Hence, even if the Court would exempt this case from the stringent locus
standi requirement, such heroic effort would be futile because the transcendental issue
cannot be resolved anyway.

Proper Proceedings Before

the Trial Court

To prevent a repetition of this waste of precious judicial time and effort, and for the
guidance of the bench and the bar, the Court reiterates the elementary procedure49 that
must be followed by trial courts in the conduct of civil cases.50 ςrνll

Prefatorily, the trial court may -- motu proprio or upon motion of the defendant --
dismiss a complaint51 (or petition, in a special civil action) that does not allege the
plaintiffs (or petitioners) cause or causes of action.52 A complaint or petition should
contain a plain, concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which the party
pleading relies for his claim or defense.53 It should likewise clearly specify the relief
sought.54 ςrνll

Upon the filing of the complaint/petition and the payment of the requisite legal fees, the
clerk of court shall forthwith issue the corresponding summons to the defendants or the
respondents, with a directive that the defendant answer55 within 15 days, unless a
different period is fixed by the court.56 The summons shall also contain a notice that if
such answer is not filed, the plaintiffs/petitioners shall take a judgment by default and
may be granted the relief applied for.57 The court, however, may -- upon such terms as
may be just -- allow an answer to be filed after the time fixed by the Rules.58 ςrνll

7
If the answer sets forth a counterclaim or cross-claim, it must be answered within ten
(10) days from service.59 A reply may be filed within ten (10) days from service of the
pleading responded to.60 ςrνll

When an answer fails to tender an issue or admits the material allegations of the adverse
partys pleading, the court may, on motion of that party, direct judgment on such
pleading (except in actions for declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage or for
legal separation). 61 Meanwhile, a party seeking to recover upon a claim, a counterclaim
or crossclaim -- or to obtain a declaratory relief -- may, at any time after the answer
thereto has been served, move for a summary judgment in its favor. 62 Similarly, a party
against whom a claim, a counterclaim or crossclaim is asserted -- or a declaratory relief
sought -- may, at any time, move for a summary judgment in its favor.63 After the
motion is heard, the judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if there is a showing
that, except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact; and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.64 ςrνll

Within the time for -- but before -- filing the answer to the complaint or petition, the
defendant may file a motion to dismiss based on any of the grounds stated in Section 1
of Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. During the hearing of the motion, the parties shall
submit their arguments on the questions of law, and their evidence on the questions of
fact.65 After the hearing, the court may dismiss the action or claim, deny the motion, or
order the amendment of the pleadings. It shall not defer the resolution of the motion for
the reason that the ground relied upon is not indubitable. In every case, the resolution
shall state clearly and distinctly the reasons therefor.66 ςrνll

If the motion is denied, the movant may file an answer within the balance of the period
originally prescribed to file an answer, but not less than five (5) days in any event,
computed from the receipt of the notice of the denial. If the pleading is ordered to be
amended, the defendant shall file an answer within fifteen (15) days, counted from the
service of the amended pleading, unless the court provides a longer period.67 ςrνll

After the last pleading has been served and filed, the case shall be set for
pretrial,68 which is a mandatory proceeding.69 A plaintiffs/ petitioners (or its duly
authorized representatives) non-appearance at the pretrial, if without valid cause, shall
result in the dismissal of the action with prejudice, unless the court orders otherwise. A
similar failure on the part of the defendant shall be a cause for allowing the
plaintiff/petitioner to present evidence ex parte, and the court to render judgment on
the basis thereof.70 ςrνll

The parties are required to file their pretrial briefs; failure to do so shall have the same
effect as failure to appear at the pretrial.71 Upon the termination thereof, the court shall
issue an order reciting in detail the matters taken up at the conference; the action taken
on them, the amendments allowed to the pleadings; and the agreements or admissions,
if any, made by the parties regarding any of the matters considered.72 The parties may
further avail themselves of any of the modes of discovery,73 if they so wish.

Thereafter, the case shall be set for trial,74 in which the parties shall adduce their
respective evidence in support of their claims and/or defenses. By their written consent
or upon the application of either party, or on its own motion, the court may also order
any or all of the issues to be referred to a commissioner, who is to be appointed by it or
to be agreed upon by the parties.75 The trial or hearing before the commissioner shall
proceed in all respects as it would if held before the court.76 ςrνll

Upon the completion of such proceedings, the commissioner shall file with the court a
written report on the matters referred by the parties.77 The report shall be set for
hearing, after which the court shall issue an order adopting, modifying or rejecting it in

8
whole or in part; or recommitting it with instructions; or requiring the parties to present
further evidence before the commissioner or the court.78 ςrνll

Finally, a judgment or final order determining the merits of the case shall be rendered.
The decision shall be in writing, personally and directly prepared by the judge, stating
clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based, signed by the issuing
magistrate, and filed with the clerk of court.79 ςrνll

Based on these elementary guidelines, let us examine the proceedings before the trial
court in the instant case.

First, with respect to the initiatory pleading of the SJS. Even a cursory perusal of the
Petition immediately reveals its gross inadequacy. It contained no statement of ultimate
facts upon which the petitioner relied for its claim. Furthermore, it did not specify the
relief it sought from the court, but merely asked it to answer a hypothetical question.

Relief, as contemplated in a legal action, refers to a specific coercive measure prayed for
as a result of a violation of the rights of a plaintiff or a petitioner.80 As already discussed
earlier, the Petition before the trial court had no allegations of fact 81 or of any specific
violation of the petitioners rights, which the respondents had a duty to respect. Such
deficiency amounted to a failure to state a cause of action; hence, no coercive relief could
be sought and adjudicated. The Petition evidently lacked substantive requirements and,
we repeat, should have been dismissed at the outset.

Second, with respect to the trial court proceedings. Within the period set to file their
respective answers to the SJS Petition, Velarde, Villanueva and Manalo filed Motions to
Dismiss; Cardinal Sin, a Comment; and Soriano, within a priorly granted extended
period, an Answer in which he likewise prayed for the dismissal of the Petition.82 SJS
filed a Rejoinder to the Motion of Velarde, who subsequently filed a Sur-Rejoinder.
Supposedly, there were several scheduled settings, in which the [c]ourt was apprised of
the respective positions of the parties.83 The nature of such settings -- whether pretrial
or trial hearings -- was not disclosed in the records. Before ruling on the Motions to
Dismiss, the trial court issued an Order84 dated May 8, 2003, directing the parties to
submit their memoranda. Issued shortly thereafter was another Order85 dated May 14,
2003, denying all the Motions to Dismiss.

In the latter Order, the trial court perfunctorily ruled:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

The Court now resolves to deny the Motions to Dismiss, and after all the memoranda are
submitted, then, the case shall be deemed as submitted for resolution.86 ςrνll

Apparently, contrary to the requirement of Section 2 of Rule 16 of the Rules of Court,

the Motions were not heard.Worse, the Order purportedly resolving the Motions to
Dismiss did not state any reason at all for their denial, in contravention of Section 3 of
the said Rule 16. There was not even any statement of the grounds relied upon by the
Motions; much less, of the legal findings and conclusions of the trial court.

Thus, Velarde, Villanueva and Manalo moved for reconsideration. Pending the
resolution of these Motions for Reconsideration, Villanueva filed a Motion to suspend
the filing of the parties memoranda. But instead of separately resolving the pending
Motions fairly and squarely, the trial court again transgressed the Rules of Court when it
immediately proceeded to issue its Decision, even before tackling the issues raised in
those Motions.

Furthermore, the RTC issued its Decision without allowing the parties to file their
answers. For this reason, there was no joinder of the issues. If only it had allowed the
filing of those answers, the trial court would have known, as the Oral Argument

9
revealed, that the petitioner and his co-respondents below had not committed or
threatened to commit the act attributed to them (endorsing candidates) -- the act that
was supposedly the factual basis of the suit.

Parenthetically, the court a quo further failed to give a notice of the Petition to the OSG,
which was entitled to be heard upon questions involving the constitutionality or validity
of statutes and other measures.87 ςrνll

Moreover, as will be discussed in more detail, the questioned Decision of the trial court
was utterly wanting in the requirements prescribed by the Constitution and the Rules of
Court.

All in all, during the loosely abbreviated proceedings of the case, the trial court indeed
acted with inexplicable haste, with total ignorance of the law -- or, worse, in cavalier
disregard of the rules of procedure -- and with grave abuse of discretion.

Contrary to the contentions of the trial judge and of SJS, proceedings for declaratory
relief must still follow the process described above -- the petition must state a cause of
action; the proceedings must undergo the procedure outlined in the Rules of Court; and
the decision must adhere to constitutional and legal requirements.

First Substantive Issue:

Fundamental Requirements
of a Decision

The Constitution commands that [n]o decision shall be rendered by any court without
expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. No
Petition for Review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be
refused due course or denied without stating the basis therefor.88 ςrνll

Consistent with this constitutional mandate, Section 1 of Rule 36 of the Rules on Civil
Procedure similarly provides:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

Sec. 1. Rendition of judgments and final orders. A judgment or final order determining
the merits of the case shall be in writing personally and directly prepared by the judge,
stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based, signed by him
and filed with the clerk of court.

In the same vein, Section 2 of Rule 120 of the Rules of Court on Criminal Procedure
reads as follows:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

Sec. 2. Form and contents of judgments. -- The judgment must be written in the official
language, personally and directly prepared by the judge and signed by him and shall
contain clearly and distinctly a statement of the facts proved or admitted by the accused
and the law upon which the judgment is based.

x x x.

Pursuant to the Constitution, this Court also issued on January 28, 1988, Administrative
Circular No. 1, prompting all judges to make complete findings of facts in their
decisions, and scrutinize closely the legal aspects of the case in the light of the evidence
presented.They should avoid the tendency to generalize and form conclusions without
detailing the facts from which such conclusions are deduced.

In many cases,89 this Court has time and time again reminded magistrates to heed the
demand of Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution. The Court, through Chief Justice

10
Hilario G. Davide Jr. in Yao v. Court of Appeals,90 discussed at length the implications
of this provision and strongly exhorted thus:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

Faithful adherence to the requirements of Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution is
indisputably a paramount component of due process and fair play. It is likewise
demanded by the due process clause of the Constitution. The parties to a litigation
should be informed of how it was decided, with an explanation of the factual and legal
reasons that led to the conclusions of the court. The court cannot simply say that
judgment is rendered in favor of X and against Y and just leave it at that without any
justification whatsoever for its action. The losing party is entitled to know why he lost,
so he may appeal to the higher court, if permitted, should he believe that the decision
should be reversed. A decision that does not clearly and distinctly state the facts and the
law on which it is based leaves the parties in the dark as to how it was reached and is
precisely prejudicial to the losing party, who is unable to pinpoint the possible errors of
the court for review by a higher tribunal. More than that, the requirement is an
assurance to the parties that, in reaching judgment, the judge did so through the
processes of legal reasoning. It is, thus, a safeguard against the impetuosity of the judge,
preventing him from deciding ipse dixit. Vouchsafed neither the sword nor the purse by
the Constitution but nonetheless vested with the sovereign prerogative of passing
judgment on the life, liberty or property of his fellowmen, the judge must ultimately
depend on the power of reason for sustained public confidence in the justness of his
decision.

In People v. Bugarin,91 the Court also explained:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

The requirement that the decisions of courts must be in writing and that they must set
forth clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which they are based serves many
functions. It is intended, among other things, to inform the parties of the reason or
reasons for the decision so that if any of them appeals, he can point out to the appellate
court the finding of facts or the rulings on points of law with which he disagrees. More
than that, the requirement is an assurance to the parties that, in reaching judgment, the
judge did so through the processes of legal reasoning. x x x. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Indeed, elementary due process demands that the parties to a litigation be given
information on how the case was decided, as well as an explanation of the factual and
legal reasons that led to the conclusions of the court.92 ςrνll

In Madrid v. Court of Appeals,93 this Court had instructed magistrates to exert effort to
ensure that their decisions would present a comprehensive analysis or account of the
factual and legal findings that would substantially address the issues raised by the
parties.

In the present case, it is starkly obvious that the assailed Decision contains no statement
of facts -- much less an assessment or analysis thereof -- or of the courts findings as to
the probable facts. The assailed Decision begins with a statement of the nature of the
action and the question or issue presented. Then follows a brief explanation of the
constitutional provisions involved, and what the Petition sought to achieve. Thereafter,
the ensuing procedural incidents before the trial court are tracked. The Decision
proceeds to a full-length opinion on the nature and the extent of the separation of
church and state. Without expressly stating the final conclusion she has reached or
specifying the relief granted or denied, the trial judge ends her Decision with the clause
SO ORDERED.

What were the antecedents that necessitated the filing of the Petition? What exactly
were the distinct facts that gave rise to the question sought to be resolved by SJS? More
important, what were the factual findings and analysis on which the trial court based its
legal findings and conclusions? None were stated or implied. Indeed, the RTCs Decision

11
cannot be upheld for its failure to express clearly and distinctly the facts on which it was
based. Thus, the trial court clearly transgressed the constitutional directive.

The significance of factual findings lies in the value of the decision as a precedent. How
can it be so if one cannot apply the ruling to similar circumstances, simply because such
circumstances are unknown? Otherwise stated, how will the ruling be applied in the
future, if there is no point of factual comparison?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Moreover, the court a quo did not include a resolutory or dispositive portion in its so-
called Decision. The importance of such portion was explained in the early
case Manalang v. Tuason de Rickards,94 from which we
quote:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

The resolution of the Court on a given issue as embodied in the dispositive part of the
decision or order is the investitive or controlling factor that determines and settles the
rights of the parties and the questions presented therein, notwithstanding the existence
of statements or declaration in the body of said order that may be confusing.

The assailed Decision in the present case leaves us in the dark as to its final resolution of
the Petition. To recall, the original Petition was for declaratory relief. So, what relief did
the trial court grant or deny? What rights of the parties did it conclusively declare? Its
final statement says, SO ORDERED. But what exactly did the court order? It had the
temerity to label its issuance a Decision, when nothing was in fact decided.

Respondent SJS insists that the dispositive portion can be found in the body of the
assailed Decision. It claims that the issue is disposed of and the Petition finally resolved
by the statement of the trial court found on page 10 of its 14-page Decision, which reads:
Endorsement of specific candidates in an election to any public office is a clear violation
of the separation clause.95 ςrνll

We cannot agree.

In Magdalena Estate, Inc. v. Caluag,96 the obligation of the party imposed by the Court
was allegedly contained in the text of the original Decision. The Court, however,
held:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

x x x The quoted finding of the lower court cannot supply deficiencies in the dispositive
portion. It is a mere opinion of the court and the rule is settled that where there is a
conflict between the dispositive part and the opinion, the former must prevail over the
latter on the theory that the dispositive portion is the final order while the opinion is
merely a statement ordering nothing. (Italics in the original)

Thus, the dispositive portion cannot be deemed to be the statement quoted by SJS and
embedded in the last paragraph of page 10 of the assailed 14-page Decision. If at all, that
statement is merely an answer to a hypothetical legal question and just a part of the
opinion of the trial court. It does not conclusively declare the rights (or obligations) of
the parties to the Petition. Neither does it grant any -- much less, the proper -- relief
under the circumstances, as required of a dispositive portion.

Failure to comply with the constitutional injunction is a grave abuse of discretion

amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Decisions or orders issued in careless
disregard of the constitutional mandate are a patent nullity and must be struck down as
void.97

12
 Parts of a Decision

In general, the essential parts of a good decision consist of the following: (1) statement
of the case; (2) statement of facts; (3) issues or assignment of errors; (4) court ruling, in
which each issue is, as a rule, separately considered and resolved; and, finally, (5)
dispositive portion. The ponente may also opt to include an introduction or a prologue
as well as an epilogue, especially in cases in which controversial or novel issues are
involved.98 ςrνll

An introduction may consist of a concise but comprehensive statement of the principal

factual or legal issue/s of the case. In some cases -- particularly those concerning public
interest; or involving complicated commercial, scientific, technical or otherwise rare
subject matters -- a longer introduction or prologue may serve to acquaint readers with
the specific nature of the controversy and the issues involved. An epilogue may be a
summation of the important principles applied to the resolution of the issues of
paramount public interest or significance. It may also lay down an enduring philosophy
of law or guiding principle.

Let us now, again for the guidance of the bench and the bar, discuss the essential parts
of a good decision.

1.Statement of the Case

The Statement of the Case consists of a legal definition of the nature of the action.At the
first instance, this part states whether the action is a civil case for collection, ejectment,
quieting of title, foreclosure of mortgage, and so on; or, if it is a criminal case, this part
describes the specific charge -- quoted usually from the accusatory portion of the
information -- and the plea of the accused. Also mentioned here are whether the case is
being decided on appeal or on a petition for certiorari , the court of origin, the case
number in the trial court, and the dispositive portion of the assailed decision.

In a criminal case, the verbatim reproduction of the criminal information serves as a

guide in determining the nature and the gravity of the offense for which the accused may
be found culpable.As a rule, the accused cannot be convicted of a crime different from or
graver than that charged.

Also, quoting verbatim the text of the information is especially important when there is
a question on the sufficiency of the charge, or on whether qualifying and modifying
circumstances have been adequately alleged therein.

To ensure that due process is accorded, it is important to give a short description of the
proceedings regarding the plea of the accused. Absence of an arraignment, or a serious
irregularity therein, may render the judgment void, and further consideration by the
appellate court would be futile. In some instances, especially in appealed cases, it would
also be useful to mention the fact of the appellants detention, in order to dispose of the
preliminary query -- whether or not they have abandoned their appeal by absconding or
jumping bail.

Mentioning the court of origin and the case number originally assigned helps in
facilitating the consolidation of the records of the case in both the trial and the appellate
courts, after entry of final judgment.

Finally, the reproduction of the decretal portion of the assailed decision informs the
reader of how the appealed case was decided by the court a quo.

13
2.Statement of Facts

There are different ways of relating the facts of the case. First, under the objective or
reportorial method, the judge summarizes -- without comment -- the testimony of each
witness and the contents of each exhibit. Second, under the synthesis method, the
factual theory of the plaintiff or prosecution and then that of the defendant or defense is
summarized according to the judges best light. Third, in the subjective method, the
version of the facts accepted by the judge is simply narrated without explaining what the
parties versions are. Finally, through a combination of objective and subjective means,
the testimony of each witness is reported and the judge then formulates his or her own
version of the facts.

In criminal cases, it is better to present both the version of the prosecution and that of
the defense, in the interest of fairness and due process. A detailed evaluation of the
contentions of the parties must follow. The resolution of most criminal cases, unlike civil
and other cases, depends to a large extent on the factual issues and the appreciation of
the evidence. The plausibility or the implausibility of each version can sometimes be
initially drawn from a reading of the facts. Thereafter, the bases of the court in arriving
at its findings and conclusions should be explained.

On appeal, the fact that the assailed decision of the lower court fully, intelligently and
correctly resolved all factual and legal issues involved may partly explain why the
reviewing court finds no reason to reverse the findings and conclusions of the former.
Conversely, the lower courts patent misappreciation of the facts or misapplication of the
law would aid in a better understanding of why its ruling is reversed or modified.

In appealed civil cases, the opposing sets of facts no longer need to be presented. Issues
for resolution usually involve questions of law, grave abuse of discretion, or want of
jurisdiction; hence, the facts of the case are often undisputed by the parties. With few
exceptions, factual issues are not entertained in non-criminal cases.Consequently, the
narration of facts by the lower court, if exhaustive and clear, may be reproduced;
otherwise, the material factual antecedents should be restated in the words of the
reviewing magistrate.

In addition, the reasoning of the lower court or body whose decision is under review
should be laid out, in order that the parties may clearly understand why the lower court
ruled in a certain way, and why the reviewing court either finds no reason to reverse it or
concludes otherwise.

3.Issues or Assignment of Errors

Both factual and legal issues should be stated. On appeal, the assignment of errors, as
mentioned in the appellants brief, may be reproduced in toto and tackled seriatim,so as
to avoid motions for reconsideration of the final decision on the ground that the court
failed to consider all assigned errors that could affect the outcome of the case. But when
the appellant presents repetitive issues or when the assigned errors do not strike at the
main issue, these may be restated in clearer and more coherent terms.

Though not specifically questioned by the parties, additional issues may also be
included, if deemed important for substantial justice to be rendered. Note that appealed
criminal cases are given de novo review, in contrast to noncriminal cases in which the
reviewing court is generally limited to issues specifically raised in the appeal. The few
exceptions are errors of jurisdiction; questions not raised but necessary in arriving at a
just decision on the case; or unassigned errors that are closely related to those properly
assigned, or upon which depends the determination of the question properly raised.

14
4.The Courts Ruling

This part contains a full discussion of the specific errors or issues raised in the
complaint, petition or appeal, as the case may be; as well as of other issues the court
deems essential to a just disposition of the case. Where there are several issues, each one
of them should be separately addressed, as much as practicable. The respective
contentions of the parties should also be mentioned here. When procedural questions
are raised in addition to substantive ones, it is better to resolve the former preliminarily.

5.The Disposition or Dispositive Portion

In a criminal case, the disposition should include a finding of innocence or guilt, the
specific crime committed, the penalty imposed, the participation of the accused, the
modifying circumstances if any, and the civil liability and costs. In case an acquittal is
decreed, the court must order the immediate release of the accused, if detained, (unless
they are being held for another cause) and order the director of the Bureau of
Corrections (or wherever the accused is detained) to report, within a maximum of ten
(10) days from notice, the exact date when the accused were set free.

In a civil case as well as in a special civil action, the disposition should state whether the
complaint or petition is granted or denied, the specific relief granted, and the costs.The
following test of completeness may be applied. First, the parties should know their
rights and obligations. Second, they should know how to execute the decision under
alternative contingencies. Third, there should be no need for further proceedings to
dispose of the issues. Fourth, the case should be terminated by according the proper
relief. The proper relief usually depends upon what the parties seek in their pleadings. It
may declare their rights and duties, command the performance of positive prestations,
or order them to abstain from specific acts. The disposition must also adjudicate costs.

The foregoing parts need not always be discussed in sequence. But they should all be
present and plainly identifiable in the decision.Depending on the writers character,
genre and style, the language should be fresh and free-flowing, not necessarily
stereotyped or in a fixed form; much less highfalutin, hackneyed and pretentious. At all
times, however, the decision must be clear, concise, complete and correct.

Second Substantive Issue:

Religious Leaders Endorsement

of Candidates for Public Office

The basic question posed in the SJS Petition -- WHETHER ENDORSEMENTS OF

CANDIDACIES BY RELIGIOUS LEADERS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL -- undoubtedly
deserves serious consideration. As stated earlier, the Court deems this constitutional
issue to be of paramount interest to the Filipino citizenry, for it concerns the governance
of our country and its people. Thus, despite the obvious procedural transgressions by
both SJS and the trial court, this Court still called for Oral Argument, so as not to leave
any doubt that there might be room to entertain and dispose of the SJS Petition on the
merits.

Counsel for SJS has utterly failed, however, to convince the Court that there are enough
factual and legal bases to resolve the paramount issue. On the other hand, the Office of
the Solicitor General has sided with petitioner insofar as there are no facts supporting
the SJS Petition and the assailed Decision.

We reiterate that the said Petition failed to state directly the ultimate facts that it relied
upon for its claim. During the Oral Argument, counsel for SJS candidly admitted that
there were no factual allegations in its Petition for Declaratory Relief.Neither were there

15
factual findings in the assailed Decision. At best, SJS merely asked the trial court to
answer a hypothetical question. In effect, it merely sought an advisory opinion, the
rendition of which was beyond the courts constitutional mandate and
jurisdiction.99 ςrνll

Indeed, the assailed Decision was rendered in clear violation of the Constitution,
because it made no findings of facts and final disposition. Hence, it is void and deemed
legally inexistent. Consequently, there is nothing for this Court to review, affirm, reverse
or even just modify.

Regrettably, it is not legally possible for the Court to take up, on the merits, the
paramount question involving a constitutional principle. It is a time-honored rule that
the constitutionality of a statute [or act] will be passed upon only if, and to the extent
that, it is directly and necessarily involved in a justiciable controversy and is essential to
the protection of the rights of the parties concerned.100 ςrνll

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review of Brother Mike Velarde

is GRANTED. Theassailed June 12, 2003 Decision and July 29, 2003 Order of the
Regional Trial Court of Manila (Branch 49) are hereby DECLARED NULL AND
VOID and thus SET ASIDE.The SJS Petition for Declaratory Relief is DISMISSED for
failure to state a cause of action.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Court Administrator to evaluate
and recommend whether the trial judge may, after observing due process, be held
administratively liable for rendering a decision violative of the Constitution, the Rules of
Court and relevant circulars of this Court. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Quisumbing, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-

Martinez, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, and TINGA, JJ., concur.

Vitug, J., in the result.

Ynares-Santiago, J., no part.

Corona, J., on leave.

16